Occupy Wall Street

[jackoroe]

Jackoroe, you help turn people more liberal with this sort of simple-minded, inane response. Palemale is 'way ahead of you on this one.

The way you respond, I'd have to assume you don't think that watering a lawn makes it green -- it just gets it wet, right?

For one thing, those high marginal rates led to growth BECAUSE no one paid them. Think about it.

Let's put this dreamy eyed bullshit about how swell things were during the Eisenhower administration to rest, once and for all.

Eisenhower's fiscal conservatism carried a heavy price. There were three recessions during his administration--July 1953 through May 1954, August 1957 through April 1958, and April 1960 through February 1961--and real growth of the gross domestic product averaged just 2.5 percent over those eight years. In large part, that sluggish growth was due to high tax rates, not just on the wealthy but on the middle class as well. In fact, as Figure 2 shows, increasing tax rates on the wealthy led to increases in tax rates on middle-class incomes (defined as $50,000 for a family of four in 1992) as well.(40)

Read it carefully. Three recessions and GDP growth of a pathetic 2.5% over his eight year term of office. And what did his successor, John F. Kennedy do about this situation? Well, what a surprise! He cut taxes!

On January 24, 1963, Kennedy sent his tax cut proposal to Congress. It called for reducing the top marginal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, reducing the lowest income tax rate from 20 percent to 14 percent, and cutting the corporate income tax rate from 52 percent to 47 percent.(42) Interestingly, Kennedy's tax plan was opposed by some of his more liberal advisers, such as John Kenneth Galbraith.(43) They favored stimulating the economy by increasing government spending. But Kennedy held firm, not just on the need for tax cuts, but on cuts in marginal tax rates.

Got that? Cut tax rates on everybody, including the rich. Now pay attention, it gets interesting right about here. Now every good liberal knows that cutting taxes reduces revenue to the government. Especially among those rich folks. Guess what! That's bullshit! Revenues, once Kennedy's tax cuts took effect, actually increased! Even from those hated rich.

Table 8
Tax Revenue from the Wealthy, 1961-66 ($ Millions)
Income Class 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
$100,000 - $500,000 1,970 1,740 1,890 2,220 2,752
$500,000 - $1 million 297 243 243 306 408
Over $1 million 342 311 326 427 603

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html


Now that we've exposed that high taxes caused prosperity during the Eisenhower years as bullshit, what else you got?

Oh and BTW, as someone who has a lawn but hates taking care of it, I also know that too much water is as bad as not enough.

 

[JayHawk]

http://blog.ted.com/2011/10/24/how-economic-inequality-harms-societies-richard-wilkinson-on-ted-com/

This excellent narrative shows the effects of an unbalanced distribution of income.

It also points out something (starting at 10 minutes) I've wondered about for a long time: that inequality does not need to be resolved through higher and higher taxation on wealth. You can just pay people more equally.

This is quite possibly the first thing we have agreed on entirely. The minimum wage should have increased by double at this point. We do need to equally tax those that make more BUT we also need to lead the way out of the forest of "we must be a blue collar nation" to a higher educated workforce. There simply exist no other way in this global economy. Unless of course we slink into third world status as some ridiculously assert. Those making those assertions have no fucking idea what third world looks like. Or they wouldn't say it.

Have you got a set of figures for reaching that, or is it gut guesstimate?



I'd say I've proposed "real reform in government".

And I have yet to hear about rock-throwing from a reliable source.

Ah so the associated press is no longer a reliable source. Check. And yes that is a guesstimate based on NOW and based on living with and around folks making it barely on that amount. 20 to 30 k should have provisions in the tax code to make it easier. Below 20 should pay nothing at all and perhaps receive assistance to get to 30. I am a bit of a dick though. If you receive assistance and fail a drug test it is fraud and punishable by time in prison. I mean you are paying for them either way so it might as well be punitive. All food card abuse feasibility should be removed. I.E. no cash back on welfare bucks just the exact amount removed from the card. Demonstrative acts of seeking employment or show up daily at the local work party each day. (They can start by cleaning up all the OWS fecal matter. ) {that was for both Kuli and the dinosaur} I believe thoroughly in what Bill Clinton professed. "People want a hand up, not a hand out" I just wanna do it the way Reagan would have "Trust but Verify".

 

[Kulindahr]

OK, I've ran across this video from an email I got today. It's something I've been doing for quite a while. However, this goes several steps ahead of what I've been doing. When you get junk mail in the snail mail system, this is how you respond.

I used to do that, but not with a message. The most I did was put the guts of different mailings back in the wrong return envelopes.

A friend in college worked summers at his dad's brick works. He put brick slices in envelopes and mailed them back.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let's put this dreamy eyed bullshit about how swell things were during the Eisenhower administration to rest, once and for all.

"How swell"?

I'm not sure who's been claiming that. My point is that what was once seen as conservative -- paying the country's debts -- is now rejected.

Read it carefully. Three recessions and GDP growth of a pathetic 2.5% over his eight year term of office. And what did his successor, John F. Kennedy do about this situation? Well, what a surprise! He cut taxes!

Eisenhower was conservative, and put it this way:

"We cannot afford to reduce taxes, [and] reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."

Those recessions? He declined to fight them because they helped crush the remaining inflation from the war. A clumsy tool, yes, but it was purpose. And it got inflation near zero and left it there.

He also allowed them because as a conservative he didn't believe it was the government's business to fiddle with the economy.

And by the end of his administration the debt was low enough he'd already looked at lowering taxes. So when Kennedy proposed the same thing, guess who opposed it? Democrats.....

Got that? Cut tax rates on everybody, including the rich. Now pay attention, it gets interesting right about here. Now every good liberal knows that cutting taxes reduces revenue to the government. Especially among those rich folks. Guess what! That's bullshit! Revenues, once Kennedy's tax cuts took effect, actually increased! Even from those hated rich.

At that level, of course it did -- because the rates on the bottom end were punitive, too. The people who actually spend money didn't have any to spend.

And give the simpleton bit on cutting taxes a rest.

Now that we've exposed that high taxes caused prosperity during the Eisenhower years as bullshit, what else you got?

Oh and BTW, as someone who has a lawn but hates taking care of it, I also know that too much water is as bad as not enough.

Now that we're agreed we can have prosperity with a top marginal tax rate of 70%, will you stop objecting to that rate? And get back to the conservative value of paying our debts?

 

[JayHawk]

Now that we're agreed we can have prosperity with a top marginal tax rate of 70%, will you stop objecting to that rate? And get back to the conservative value of paying our debts?

So you are arguing that Occupy Wall Street's desire is that we as a government pay our bills?


I don't remember that on the [STRIKE]manifesto[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]youtube announcement[/STRIKE] happy fingers consortium.

 

[Kulindahr]

And yes that is a guesstimate based on NOW and based on living with and around folks making it barely on that amount. 20 to 30 k should have provisions in the tax code to make it easier. Below 20 should pay nothing at all and perhaps receive assistance to get to 30. I am a bit of a dick though. If you receive assistance and fail a drug test it is fraud and punishable by time in prison. I mean you are paying for them either way so it might as well be punitive. All food card abuse feasibility should be removed. I.E. no cash back on welfare bucks just the exact amount removed from the card.

Where the heck is it possible to get cash back from a food card? I've done food card shopping for someone who can't get out sometimes, and it isn't even an option.

Screw the drug tests -- if we want to balance the budget, end the stupid war on drugs. . . at least ones that can be grown at home. Let family businesses deal in them. It would save ten billion a year and reduce violent crime by at least half.

 

[Kulindahr]

So you are arguing that Occupy Wall Street's desire is that we as a government pay our bills?


I don't remember that on the [STRIKE]manifesto[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]youtube announcement[/STRIKE] happy fingers consortium.

Actually there was one sign saying that -- "pay the debt, not the bankers", or something similar.

I'm just trying to keep it clear that those arguing we shouldn't have higher taxes, in a situation where we have an obscene debt, are NOT conservatives.


Now back to Occupy....

 

[JayHawk]

Where the heck is it possible to get cash back from a food card? I've done food card shopping for someone who can't get out sometimes, and it isn't even an option.

Screw the drug tests -- if we want to balance the budget, end the stupid war on drugs. . . at least ones that can be grown at home. Let family businesses deal in them. It would save ten billion a year and reduce violent crime by at least half.

When it was stamps that was a popular scam. I honestly don't know if there is a way. hell it may be solved and I am not close enough anymore to know it.

I have stated previously that i have no issue legalizing things like hash and marijuana BUT if I am paying someone a chunk of money collected from me because they can't afford life then life doesn't include getting high. Educational or vocational vouchers to educate these folks in need and so give a hand up. Then that again would be dependent on performance.

Actually there was one sign saying that -- "pay the debt, not the bankers", or something similar.

I'm just trying to keep it clear that those arguing we shouldn't have higher taxes, in a situation where we have an obscene debt, are NOT conservatives.


Now back to Occupy....

Well certainly we need to pay our bills and lower taxes. ?????? WTF you say???? a flat tax of 15% would be a damn site less than i am paying now BUT if my billionaire and millionaire and even a few several hundred thousandaire friends were paying their equal 15% we would increase revenue.

I know I will get liberally shat upon here for saying this but scrap Obamacare. It is a giant load of shit mostly because the republicans pushed it into that direction BUT also because Barrack Obama allowed it to be pushed there. WE DO NEED HEALTHCARE BUT OBAMACARE IS NOT IT.

I stick by my guns on this one. I will not go buy a new truck this year because everything is down and I am floating three households. Why the fuck is our country embarking on NEW debt when they have no idea how to tackle the old debt. Makes no sense. We keep it up and we will be a EU country with 70-90% debt to GDP. We are all acutely aware of what occurs when you create a giant credit bubble of that enormity. DO we really wanna do that to our nation? Why?

/End Rant

 

[T-Rexx]

Let's put this dreamy eyed bullshit about how swell things were during the Eisenhower administration to rest, once and for all.Read it carefully. Three recessions and GDP growth of a pathetic 2.5% over his eight year term of office.

I see. So there was NO great post war economic boom. The period following WW II did NOT mark one of the biggest and longest economic expansions in history, as we were taught.

And what did his successor, John F. Kennedy do about this situation? Well, what a surprise! He cut taxes!

You don't seem to get this. High taxes do not cause economic expansion. Income equality causes economic expansion. Tax cuts for the middle class are stimulatory, because they lead to increased spending.

Selective tax cuts for the wealthy (which is what your party has advocated for 30 years, and continues to advocate) lead to economic inequality, which is economically suppressive. Extreme economic inequality is economically disastrous.

Reaganomics does NOT work. "Trickle down" from the wealthy is a figment of Republican imagination.

They can start by cleaning up all the OWS fecal matter. {that was for both Kuli and the dinosaur}

You said above (post #912) that what you were worried about was the idea of poor sanitation ("what HAS to be occurring") not what anyone has actually reported or complained about. No amount of scrubbing the parks will clear your mind of its copromania, I'm afraid. You will still be obsessed that someone, somewhere, might be pooping in public.

I just wanna do it the way Reagan would have "Trust but Verify".

I have always hated that stupid statement of Reagan's, because it is a nonsense statement. If you have to verify, you're not trusting. He may as well have said "trust but don't trust."

Yes, I know it's a translation of a Russian proverb. But that proverb is supposed to be a humorous way of saying "you can never really trust anyone - always verify." I've always imagined that Gorbachev must have been insulted by that statement. But that would have sailed over poor Ronnie's head.

 

[JB3]

I
I have always hated that stupid statement of Reagan's, because it is a nonsense statement. If you have to verify, you're not trusting. He may as well have said "trust but don't trust."

Not nonsense at all. I can assign my students a project and trust that they'll do it properly and follow the rules that I've given them, but once its turned in I have to verify that what they did matches what the assignment was. Me verifying doesn't mean that I don't trust them, it just means that I am verifying their work. It actually underpins things like tests as well. (you trust that they have been learning and absorbing the information, but you're verifying that through the test)

 

[evanrick]

i am all for taxing the rich and leveling the income gap, but things like social security, which doesnt really do anything, needs to be reformed, its not supposed to be a permanent source of means for people who are simply over a certain age, which it has become.

 

[evanrick]

When it was stamps that was a popular scam. I honestly don't know if there is a way. hell it may be solved and I am not close enough anymore to know it.

I have stated previously that i have no issue legalizing things like hash and marijuana BUT if I am paying someone a chunk of money collected from me because they can't afford life then life doesn't include getting high. Educational or vocational vouchers to educate these folks in need and so give a hand up. Then that again would be dependent on performance.



Well certainly we need to pay our bills and lower taxes. ?????? WTF you say???? a flat tax of 15% would be a damn site less than i am paying now BUT if my billionaire and millionaire and even a few several hundred thousandaire friends were paying their equal 15% we would increase revenue.

I know I will get liberally shat upon here for saying this but scrap Obamacare. It is a giant load of shit mostly because the republicans pushed it into that direction BUT also because Barrack Obama allowed it to be pushed there. WE DO NEED HEALTHCARE BUT OBAMACARE IS NOT IT.

I stick by my guns on this one. I will not go buy a new truck this year because everything is down and I am floating three households. Why the fuck is our country embarking on NEW debt when they have no idea how to tackle the old debt. Makes no sense. We keep it up and we will be a EU country with 70-90% debt to GDP. We are all acutely aware of what occurs when you create a giant credit bubble of that enormity. DO we really wanna do that to our nation? Why?

/End Rant

our debt isnt that bad actually, its 'on track' with the bush years projected spikes in defecits, so we should not be surprised that our debt is higher than it was after Clinton left office.

as for Obamacare, its better than nothing, a lot better, and the taxes in it will reduce the deficit, were you paying attention when the law was passed?

 

[T-Rexx]

Not nonsense at all. I can assign my students a project and trust that they'll do it properly and follow the rules that I've given them, but once its turned in I have to verify that what they did matches what the assignment was. Me verifying doesn't mean that I don't trust them, it just means that I am verifying their work. It actually underpins things like tests as well. (you trust that they have been learning and absorbing the information, but you're verifying that through the test)

I would submit that the reason you grade assignments is because you cannot trust that the students actually did what you asked them to do. And you conduct tests because you cannot trust that the students will learn the material without verification and the threat of punishment. And I'm sure you're correct about that.

Anyway, it seems Gorbachev really was irritated by Reagan's use of that statement. At the signing of the INF treaty in 1987, Reagan said it yet again. Gorbachev's annoyed response was "You repeat that at every meeting."

Apparently, the proverb was a favorite of Lenin's, because he trusted nobody, and was fond of saying so. I doubt that Gorbachev was a big fan of Lenin's. And I doubt that Gorbachev appreciated being constantly reminded by Reagan that Reagan didn't trust him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

 

[JayHawk]

You said above (post #912) that what you were worried about was the idea of poor sanitation ("what HAS to be occurring") not what anyone has actually reported or complained about. No amount of scrubbing the parks will clear your mind of its copromania, I'm afraid. You will still be obsessed that someone, somewhere, might be pooping in public.

Well those ignorant statements is where anything else you argue loses all credibility. Try googling the search terms you are looking for and you will find several news sources mentioning such acts. in some cities they are paying out of the city coffers to provide portolets. But just on the face of it if these morons are in the park 24/7 then human nature must run it's course. But of course since you have no other valid argument you seek to focus yet again on me.

I have always hated that stupid statement of Reagan's, because it is a nonsense statement. If you have to verify, you're not trusting. He may as well have said "trust but don't trust."

Yes, I know it's a translation of a Russian proverb. But that proverb is supposed to be a humorous way of saying "you can never really trust anyone - always verify." I've always imagined that Gorbachev must have been insulted by that statement. But that would have sailed over poor Ronnie's head.

That is your opinion of course. The beauty of Reagan as was the beauty of Bush. They had a plan and a goal and it didnt matter what anyone else fucking thought including Gorby. Which is ultimately what brought the USSR to the table. That and economic ruin of which OBL took note of but underestimated our ability to develop wealth. But that is off the track and for another time. Boy wouldn't you love it if you had a President who would get shit done without asking everyone's permission first? I do. That's why I voted for him in the first place. Boy did I get let down by yet again shitty lib leadership.

You are absolutely right. The statement means I don't fucking trust you. In the reference I made before where people are collecting public monies then I don't fucking trust them to do the right thing. Abuses and chronic welfare status are the truth that has been documented throughout the application of a welfare system in any country and particularly this one. Not verifying the people receiving the funds is choosing to be willfully ignorant.

So in one statement you refuse to acknowledge human nature and in the second you refuse to acknowledge past abuses. Is there anything you had a vapid point about here?

 

[BostonPirate]

pooping in public

oh lord

what a world

Those poor people, the serfs and the peasants

What to do with them, eh?

I hear that was a big problem in france... a few years before the Guillutine made its debut and the rich and the royal.. shall we say... lost their grip on their nation.

 

[T-Rexx]

Well those ignorant statements is where anything else you argue loses all credibility. Try googling the search terms you are looking for and you will find several news sources mentioning such acts. in some cities they are paying out of the city coffers to provide portolets. But just on the face of it if these morons are in the park 24/7 then human nature must run it's course. But of course since you have no other valid argument you seek to focus yet again on me.

I did google it.

There's not a single report of human waste soiling any OWS demonstration. Not one. Not anywhere. That idea exists only in your mind.

There are a lot of people who feel better if they convince themselves that their enemies are subhuman.

But repeating a lie over and over does not make it truth.

 

[BostonPirate]

Here is where the shit myth began... its a great link that shows the progression the right wingers have made with this.

Pixel was doing it the first week it was going on.

http://storify.com/motherjones/occupied-with-smut

So my attitude is so the fuck what... people shit on the sidewalk.

That pales in comparison to the damage that the bankers and the traders did to this nation with these unregulated investment packages.

Believe me... If I asked someone..." are you more personally affected by some kids shitting on the lawn or losing your life savings and your homes?" I think I know what people would prefer. Turn the boston Commons into a fucking shitbox as far as I am concerned.

I bet there are about 20 mill homeowners underwater on their mortgages right now that would build a teenager shit box on their lawn and still have the house and the retirement money.

 

[BostonPirate]

It would look like a court has sided with the protesters.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/us/tennessee-occupy-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger issued the order, which state officials did not fight.

"Political expression deserves the highest level of protection and it was unacceptable for the state to suddenly shut down protesters' speech and forcibly oust them from Legislative Plaza that has long been used as a place for peaceful expression," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director at the ACLU of Tennessee.
26 Saturday arrests at Occupy Nashville Occupy protesters arrested in Nashville Occupy the Iowa caucuses? Heated debate on the Occupy movement
"The state conceded that the temporary restraining order should be issued and we hope that this is the first step (that) the state is recommitting itself to safeguarding -- not thwarting -- public political expression," she added.​

Efforts by CNN to reach officials in the state attorney general's office were not successful.
The order will remain in effect for 21 days. A hearing in the case is scheduled for November 21.

 

[White Eagle]

The Occupy is working.
Bank of America is cancelling their $5 charge on debit cards. Now for the rest!!!!

 

[Kulindahr]

The Occupy is working.
Bank of America is cancelling their $5 charge on debit cards. Now for the rest!!!!

That's just trying to buy people off. I won't be happy till the whole program is done -- restore Glass-Steagall, end corporate participation in any political activity, etc.